International Conference on Social Sciences 2015

(1)

International Conference on Social Sciences 2015

Touching Lives, Bridging Society

27 - 28 August 2015

Rainbow Paradise Beach Resort, Penang, Malaysia

Editors:

Hooi Hooi Lean et al.

(2)

ii not necessarily reflect the views of the editors, the school or the university. While every attempt has been made to ensure consistency of the format and the layout of the proceedings, the editors are not responsible for the content of the papers appearing in the proceedings.

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloging-in-Publication Data USM International Conference on Social Sciences 2015 – Touching Lives, Bridging Society / Hooi Hooi Lean et al.

eISBN 978-967-11473-3-7

1. Touching lives. 2. Bridging society. I. Hooi Hooi Lean.

(3)

iii

Preface

A society and people in general have always been the major focus of any study in the field of social sciences. Given the conflicts, competition, pressures, tensions and differences that are prevalent and persisting around us in today‘s society, social scientists can have a great potential to touch the lives of all human beings in many different societies. By doing so, they too can bridge the gaps that are seen to be widening between and within societies today. The field of social sciences critically examines and analyses elements of human existence, their infinite combinations of interactions, their value systems, traditions, culture, options and choices and practices. This is reflected in a broad range of disciplines which include anthropology and sociology, development studies, economics, political science, psychology and social work.

The proceedings of this conference includes papers presented at the USM-International Conference on Social Sciences (USM-ICOSS) 2015 which was hosted with the aptly noble theme ―Touching Lives and Bridging Society‖ and held from 27 - 28 August 2015 at the Rainbow Paradise Beach Resort, Penang, Malaysia. This conference is solely organized by the School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia.

We had received a total of 159 academic papers from various institutions and organization from around the world where 45 papers were selected and accepted for inclusion in these proceedings. The proceedings are now compiled and presented according to the five major sections or disciplines of social sciences. It covers both theoretical submissions and empirical works from scholars around the globe. It is hoped that the collection of these conference papers will become a valuable source of reference materials to the conference participants, researchers, students, the general public, the various stake holders and the policy makers. The proceedings will be submitted to The Thomson Reuters for Conference Proceedings Citation Index.

We would like to take this opportunity to profoundly thank all the authors and paper presenters for their kind and invaluable contributions and their support towards our School‘s and our University‘s efforts in benefiting society and mankind through the organization of this conference. Our sincere gratitude also goes out to all the many paper reviewers who so generously provided their professional views and expert comments. Last but not least, we would humbly and honestly register our heart-felt appreciation to our editorial board members and the much-valued assistant who all worked very hard and passionately contributed their time and expertise in the editing process of these proceedings.

Editors: Hooi Hooi Lean et al.

(8)

viii

Editorial Board

Chief Editor Hooi Hooi Lean

Editors

Intan Hashimah Mohd Hashim Premalatha Karupiah

Ee Shiang Lim Suet Leng Khoo Noreha Haji Hashim Balaraju Nikku

Editorial Assistant Mitshel Lino

(9)

1

The Capability Approach: Comparing Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum

Nithiya Guna Saigaran^a,*, Premalatha Karupiah^b, Parthiban S. Gopal^c School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia E-mail: ^a,*nityaah@gmail.com, ^bprema@usm.my,^cparthi@usm.my Abstract

Capability approach pioneered by Amartya Sen has been a new milestone for analyzing poverty through gender perspective. Since the introduction of the approach, numerous scholars from various fields have applied this approach in their studies. One of the prominent scholars who has contributed and expanded the approach is Martha Nussbaum. Though there have been some agreements but the arguments between the two scholars have shed new insights about the poor and their situation. Therefore, this paper attempts to compare Sen‘s and Nussbaum‘s capability approach by focusing on their core concepts, main arguments and rationality of the criticism of the approach. The methodology of this paper is based on document research.

Keywords: Amartya Sen; Martha Nussbaum; Capability approach; Cultural relativism;

1. Introduction

The capability approach developed by Nussbaum and Sen has received enormous attention in recent years in-term of philosophical exchanges and applied discussions related to policymaking. Although Sen pioneered the approach, but Nussbaum expanded it to a more advanced level and more applicable in various fields other than the economic studies.

Correspondingly, both scholars agreed that capability approach is a realistic framework for the study of human life from a different perspective. Despite their agreement with the fundamental aspects of capability approach, there are some differences in the way they explain capability approach. This paper will outline three main differences in Sen and Nussbaum‘s version of capability approach in terms of a definite list of capabilities, groundness of the theory and the argument regarding cultural relativism.

1.2 Difference in Sen and Nussbaum‟s Capability Approach

Sen and Nussbaum‘s arguments regarding capability approach explain that human development should not be focused based on income poverty only. They both argue that humans themselves have the strength to improve their impoverished life. Therefore, Sen‘s approach basically explains poverty using two core concepts that are referred to as capability and functioning. On the other hand, Nussbaum‘s version goes into the core concepts by identifying variations and setting limitations to the concepts especially in terms of capabilities. Both versions of capability approach are explained in the next section.

1.2.1 Sen‟s Capability Approach

Amartya Sen is one of the most prominent philosophers and welfare economists who pioneered capability approach during the 1980s. He created a new dimension or new perspective on poverty studies at a time when most studies focused on lack of income as the main reason for poverty. Sen, (1999) first introduced the concept of capability in his Tanner

(10)

2 Lectures on Equality. In Sen‘s capability approach, capability and functioning are two core ideas that have been discussed. Functionings are states of being and doing, and they should be distinguished from the commodities that are being used to achieve them. For example, driving is very different from possessing a car. Here, driving is the functioning while car is the commodity that is used to drive. Robeyns, (2003) clarifies that the core aspect of capability is its focus on what people are effectively ‗able to do‘ and ‗able to be‘, basically referred to as their capabilities. Capabilities refer to the set of valuable functionings that a person has to possess which represents the effective freedom of an individual to choose between different functionings and combinations. Robeyns, (2003) stated that a person‘s functionings and capability are closely related but distinct. This can be seen in Sen‘s view as below:

―A functioning is an achievement whereas a capability is ability to achieve. Functionings are, in a sense more directly related to living conditions, since they are different aspects of living condition. Capabilities in contrast, are notions of freedom.‖ (Sen, 1994, p. 273)

Compared to other monetary related approaches, Sen‘s capability approach truly takes initiative in researching what is happening in a poor household. This effort underscores a new perspective on how we should understand that unequal distribution of resources is the main reason of destruction of capability and functionings of the members of the household.

Similarly, Bastos et al (2009) explains that Sen‘s version of capability approach exposes how commands over commodities determine rights and entitlements of each person in the household. He further clarifies that, social and cultural settings, for instance, gender structure, and determines the possession of resources of the household, the capabilities and their conversion into the functioning of a person. Occurrence of inequality distribution of resources will affect capabilities and functionings of each person of the household. In fact, Anderson (2003) clarifies that what really matters for Sen‘s capability approach is to what extent owned commodities allow a person to have a freedom of functioning in the society for their own well-being as they do not directly assure a state of being. As mentioned by Robeyns (2003), Sen‘s approach focuses on real freedom, that is on what people are able to do and not on what people should do to alleviate their impoverished situation.

1.2.2 Nussbaum‟s Capability Approach

Nussbaum is one of the notable scholars responsible in expanding the capability approach into a new dimension. Nussbaum, (1993) endorsed her own version of capabilities approach based on the Aristotelian and Marxian ideas of human flourishing and good life. Her version of capability approach claims that living well as a human being is about leading the life activities with human choice and their rationality. Unlike Sen, Nussbaum‘s capability framework identifies a well-detailed list of human capabilities that is supposed to be served by every human being in the world.

Nussbaum, (2011) typically uses the plural term ―capabilities‖ in order to emphasize that the most important aspects or capabilities of people‘s quality of life are plural and are quantitatively distinct. She felt that health, bodily integrity, education, and other aspects of individual lives cannot be classified into a single term. Therefore, Nussbaum (2011) prefers to define her ‗capability approach‘ as the ―human development approach‖, because she is concerned with the capabilities of non-human animals as well as human beings. Due to that, Nussbaum is being praised for providing a richer, more applicable and realistic framework that can be used to evaluate every individual‘s well-being. Nussbaum‘s idea of well-being

(11)

3 arises from the essence of reading Aristotle who argued about ―good life‖ of every human (Gasper, 1997; Deneulin, 2013). They further explained that like Aristotle, Nussbaum expands the approach to reinforce the environment where human beings can lead good life with their owned capabilities. Besides, it can be understood that Nussbaum‘s version of capability approach focuses not only on the household but each individual in the household.

Here, each individual in the household is the unit of analysis of poverty.

2.1 Sen and Nussbaum: A Polemic

Although Sen and Nussbaum have similarities in terms of their core ideas of capability approach, contradictions occurred in terms of argument regarding capabilities, groundness of the theory and the concept of cultural relativism (see figure 1 and figure 2). These three major aspects in the Sen and Nussbaum‘s capability approach differentiate their views in implementing the approach.

2.1.1 Arguments Regarding Capabilities

One of the most prominent differences between Sen and Nussbaum‘s capability approach is the notion of capability used in their arguments. Gasper, (1997) explains that Sen‘s version of capability approach did not specify any particular capabilities that need to be owned by a person. Compared to Sen, Nussbaum developed a definite list of capabilities that she referred as ―central human capabilities‖ (see figure 2). The list constitutes ten central human capabilities which are, (1) life, (2) bodily health, (3) bodily integrity; senses, imagination and thought; (5) emotions; (6) practical reason; (7) affiliation; (8) other species; (9) play; and (10) political and material control over one‘s environment. She believed these capabilities are needed by every human being to live in a truly human way in order to achieve human flourishing and human dignity. Although Sen pioneered capability approach, but he did not give a list of central human capabilities unlike Nussbaum (see figure 1 and figure 2).

Besides, Nussbaum does not only endorse a list of important capabilities but she also explains the variations and specifications of these capabilities. The variations of capabilities are categorized as basic, internal and combined capabilities. Nussbaum, (2000) further explains that basic capabilities are referred to human natural capabilities such as ability to hear, see or walk. These types of capabilities are needed for developing more advanced capabilities.

Meanwhile internal capabilities are based on basic capabilities by certain processes such as exercise and training. A supportive environment is needed to develop these kinds of capabilities. For example, one learns to interact after practicing speaking with family, friends and relatives. Nussbaum, (2000) defines combined capabilities as internal capabilities together with external conditions that make the exercise of a function as a mandatory option.

An example given by Nussbaum is a widowed young woman who though was not mutilated but was not allowed to practice her sexuality due to the forbiddance of her culture for a second marriage. Nussbaum, (2000) explains that in this example, the young woman has the internal capability as she is not mutilated, but she does not possess the combined capability that is the freedom to practice her sexuality. In continuation, Nussbaum (2011) also stressed that every human does not only need to have the capabilities on their own but they also need to utilize the ten central human capabilities to live in a truly human way and be fully functional. Compared to Sen, Nussbaum insists that the capabilities that have been listed should be legalized to make sure that every human being is able to practice these capabilities.

Nussbaum coined the term, threshold of capabilities, insisted that every citizen should be guaranteed or promised a social minimum security whereby these capabilities are available to

(12)

4 them as other human life infrastructures. She further agrees that institutions, for example, religious, labor and government have a role to ensure that these threshold levels of capabilities are achieved. Subsequently, Maboloc (2008) supported Nussbaum‘s version of capability approach because it proved to be a more realistic version than Sen‘s version of capability approach. He felt that Nussbaum‘s argument on capabilities should be beneficial and essential to everyone regardless of their gender, social status or any other variables.

Nussbaum did not only create a definite list of capabilities but went further to introduce the concept of threshold of capabilities. This aspect uplifts Nussbaum‘s framework as a more sensible and applicable approach compared to Sen‘s framework. Threshold of capabilities explains the importance to provide minimum benchmark of capabilities to each and every individual around the world. DeMartino, (2011) agreed that Nussbaum‘s elaboration of capabilities based on neo-Aristotelian perspective has the ability to provide an intensive framework of what is a true human life and enabling citizens to receive a minimum secured life with important capabilities. In contrast, Gasper (1997) posits that in terms of capabilities, Sen‘s research on capabilities shows that his intent was to provide an optional framework of utility or commodity-focused welfare economics and moral philosophy. Sen specifically discussed the two core ideas, which are functioning, and capability to assess the well-being and the standard of living throughout his presentation of the capability approach. On the other hand, Deneulin (2013) asserted that the focus of Nussbaum‘s capabilities approach is not the group (e.g. church or self-help groups) or life structures¹ (e.g. caste system or patriarchy), which are usually blamed for the inability of a person to escape from poverty. She insisted that the focus should be the individual him/herself. Therefore, life structures and groups are important in determining capability outcomes, but they should be left out from the evaluation space of poverty. In Nussbaum‘s capability approach, what matters most is not what the structure or group is doing, but what each individual is doing. Robeyns, (2003) argue that Nussbaum‘s well-defined ―central human capabilities‖ and the list implemented through constitutions reflect that her approach is universalistic². Through this argument, it can be understood that Nussbaum is very much focused on defining, classifying and implementing her capabilities till it reaches the common people through their government. Meanwhile, Sen‘s capabilities section is too general because there is no specification about the kind of functioning and capabilities that are need to be considered when applying his version of capability approach.

2.1.2 Groundness of the theory

Another major difference in Sen and Nussbaum‘s capability approach is in the groundness of their theory (see figure 1 and figure 2). Both have the contradiction due to their fields of expertise and backgrounds. Nussbaum, (2000) developed her version of capability approach from a philosophical perspective and she strongly grounds her theory on Marxian and Aristotelian idea of true human functioning (see figure 2). Following Aristotle, she emphasizes that the two notions of human flourishing and human dignity are compulsory to make sure a person lives his or her life in a truly human and dignified way with the capabilities that have been listed in Nussbaum‘s central human capabilities. Nussbaum starts her argument from an Aristotelian perspective of human development and does not only depend on Sen‘s theory of capability. In contrast, Sen does not use the idea of true human

1 Refers to structures (caste, patriarchy, religion or culture) that exist in human life upon creation by human themselves.

2The term refers to the effort of Nussbaum to generalize the capabilities and its constitutionalization, together with the entitlement of those aspects to every human being in this world.

(13)

5 functioning and he insisted that the capabilities owned by a person will lead to the functioning of a human and lead to human freedom. As a scholar that belongs to a different tradition Sen has his own justification on why he did not give the accreditation to Marx and Aristotelianism. On the other hand, Nussbaum also gives accreditation to Marx for being the ground on which she starts her discussion on capability approach. In a similar way, DeMartino (2011) explains that Nussbaum‘s version of capability approach clearly reflects Aristotelian heritage, with emphasis on human flourishing, but she also draws on Marx and assumes an affinity between two philosophers. He further added that, Nussbaum draws Aristotelian basic by emphasizing on function and capability and she also outlines the similarities with the views on truly complete human functioning by Marx in the economic and philosophical manuscripts at the end of her article which was originally presented in 1986. Compared to Sen who argued capabilities in a general perspective, Nussbaum (2000) argued that capability approach which includes Marxian and Aristotelian perspective require truly human functioning of every human being. Truly human functioning refers to wide range of human life activities that derived from their capabilities. Nussbaum also take Marx‘s stand when she argues that humans must have ―pluralism‖³ in their life activities because that is the only logical way that differentiates them from being animalistic (see figure 2).

2.1.3 Cultural relativism

Another important difference between Sen and Nussbaum‘s capability approach is cultural relativism (see figure 2). The concept refers to the idea that cultural context is critical to an understanding of people‘s values, beliefs and practices and strongly bounded with general tolerance and respect for the difference. Basically the concept of cultural relativism requires others to understand an individual‘s life aspects in terms of the individuals‘ own cultural settings. Meanwhile, Donnelly (1984) states that cultural relativism is a doctrine that holds that (at least once) an individual life aspects are exempt from legitimate criticisms by outsiders and is strongly supported by the notions of communal autonomy and determinations. But Nussbaum takes a brave decision to ignore the concept to make sure that each human being is treated as a human despite all the differences they have in their life.

Nussbaum, (2000), states that most feminists choose to ignore cultural relativism because it offers a tool for criticizing rationality and rejecting objectivity. Nussbaum stated that objectivity is based on the presumption that subject and object can be separated from each other; where a subject refers to a male observer and an object refers to nature. She further explains that objectivity is problematic for a woman because it denies the subjective and emotional experiences of women and contributes to male dominance. As a result, Nussbaum (2000) criticizes Sen for not straightforwardly rejecting cultural relativism for the purpose of gender equality. Although, she agreed with his care for universal norms, she questioned his stand for not completely rejecting cultural relativism in his version of capability deprivation.

This difference can be discerned in the quotation below:

―First of all, although Sen and I are in strong agreement about the poverty of cultural relativism and the need for universal norms in the development policy arena, he has never produced explicit arguments against relativism apart from historical arguments about non- western cultures that show descriptive inadequacy of many anti-universalist approaches‖

(Nussbaum, 2000, p.67)

3 It refers to variation of human activities such as reading, thinking, analyzing, fighting for the rights apart from the basic activities (eating and sleeping). Those aspects will portray the differences that occurred between the human and animal.

(14)

6 In line with Nussbaum‘s view, Zechenter (1997) identifies cultural relativism, which requires us to respect traditional cultures and its rules and regulations. In reality it tends to cover up the fact that even in the most egalitarian and non-stratified of societies, there is no such thing as one culture. Further, he argued that logically all cultures consist of groups and individuals with agendas, and their customs have reflected the interest of the dominant classes. As a result, Nussbaum (2011) posits that the perspective of respect is required in cultural relativism by saying that respect and relativism are very different because real respect for differences requires unwavering and non-relativistic protection for the freedom of speech, association and conscience, and the material factors. She further asserted that since many world traditions do not recognize these norms, hence relativism does not entail them. In larger philosophical sense, Nussbaum clear rejection of relativism has naturally connected to her definite list of capabilities that was suggested by her. Against the rules of cultural relativism, which requires us to recognize pluralism of societies, Nussbaum insisted that she is very definite about the content as international human rights movement does. She urges that a particular list of capabilities ought to be used to provide a minimum level of security and the need to be recognized and given something like legal protection in all nations.

Furthermore, dismissal of cultural relativism is needed to make sure all the nations and their citizens benefit from this capability approach and its practice without any cultural or moral justification (Brown, 2008).

Nussbaum‘s initiative in providing definite list of capabilities and legalizing it as a minimum security for every human being clearly shows that her effort in universalization of capabilities is specific (see figure 2). Nussbaum, (2000) explains that cultural relativism has the potential of interfering in this universalization of capabilities by marginalizing or underrating non- dominant voices such as women from receiving their basic capabilities from law enforcement of government. Therefore, rejection of the concept is compulsory to make sure each individual is equally entitled to the capabilities in the definite list without any interruption of culture. Furthermore, since culture itself is relative, the meaning of morality may be different from one culture to another (Rachaels, 1986). What is considered moral in one culture might not be considered moral in another culture. Therefore, Nussbaum‘s argument that the well- being of a person and their capabilities should not be debated as right or wrong but it should be implemented as a basic necessity of every human. As a result, human flourishing and human dignity will be achieved (see figure 1 and figure 2). Zechenter, (1997) criticizes that cultural relativism is about the rights of a group instead of rights of individuals. Basically cultural ideas, customs, restrictions and regulations, prioritize the well-being of a group of people rather than individual‘s well-being. In contrast, Nussbaum‘s capability approach and her definite list of capabilities suggest that an individual‘s well-being is more important than the group and each individual is entitled to be treated equally regardless of which culture he/she belong.

Consequently, if cultural relativism is taken into account, universalism of human rights will not be realistic because not all cultural groups would approve the suggestion that capabilities should be constitutionalized (see figure 2). For instance, bodily integrity (a capability that requires women to have the right to do decision regarding her body; freedom to move from one place to another, to be free from domestic violence) might be approved in a culture that practices matriarchy but neglected in a culture that practices patriarchy. In matriarchy, women‘s rights and protection are prioritized since mothers will be the head of family, but in male-headed households as in a patriarchy system, most probably women‘s life aspects such as their health and education might be neglected. Since every human being deserves to live well, Nussbaum urges that the involvement of cultural relativism will cause human well-

(15)

7 being and capabilities to be considered as an option rather than a compulsory aspect of human life. In relation, she also insists that the rejection of cultural relativism will ensure that each individual has the opportunity to perform his/her capabilities because the concept itself is bias towards functionalism and its nature of welcoming dysfunctional beliefs and customs of a culture (Gasper, 1997: 328).

Figure 1 : Amartya Sen‟s Capability Approach

Figure 2 : Martha Nussbaum‟s Capability Approach

3. Conclusion

Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum have made major contributions in exploring poverty related issues using capability approach. Sen‘s version of capability approach clarifies that individual well-being depends on their capabilities and functionings and strongly suggests that lack of income is not only the main reason of poverty. Throughout his version of capability approach, he suggested that each person should have the human freedom in order to live a life the individual has reason to value. Besides human freedom, he expounded poverty from a multidimensional perspective. In contrast, Nussbaum‘s capability approach portrays a systematic analysis of the capabilities of humans and how to bring it to common people. Grounded strongly by Aristotelian and Marxian‘s concepts of human flourishing and human dignity, Nussbaum developed a blue print of human development by creating a definite list of capabilities along with suggestions to be constitutionalized by the government.

In fact, both Sen and Nussbaum‘s approach has the potential to analyze current issues such as social inequality, gender, education and health that exists in society today. Main difference lies on which approach able portray an issue with extensive and clarity framework that able to make the researches understand and apply on their research. We can take women and poverty issue as example. Sen‘s capability approach able to analyze women and poverty issue by arguing that deprivation of general capabilities and functionings of women led them to live impoverished life. Therefore, Sen‘s approach would insist that, in order to achieve valued life, poor women need to possess capabilities and functionings in fully empowered way.

Meanwhile, Nussbaum‘s capability approach will take extended step by illustrating how a women‘s deprivation of ten specified capabilities would make them vulnerable to poverty and forbid them to live truly flourished and dignified life. Apart from that, Nussbaum‘s version of framework has the ability to show how complexity such as cultural relativism could forbid

Groundness of theory - Not clearly mentioned

Poverty (Income is one of a reason

but not a solid reason for poverty)

Capabilities (refer to what people "able to

do" and "able to be") - being literate/ healthy

*did not mention clearly

Functionings refer to being and doing

-working and studying

empowered capabilities and

functionings People will live a valued life together with freedom

Groundness of theory Aristotle / Marxian idea of human flourishing and human

dignity

Poverty - Impoverished situation because human could not achieve capabilities and functionings to lead a desired

quality life

Capabilities (created a definite list of 10 capabilities )

Central Human Capabilities 1. Life 2. Bodily integrity 3. Bodily integrity 4.Senses, Imagination and

Thought 5.Emotions 6. Practical reason

7.Affiliation 8. Other species

9.Play 10.Control over one's

environment

Dismantl e Culture relativism

Ensure emancipation of women/men by consitutionalize the 10

capabilities (because culture restrict women especially in achieve capabilities and functionings)

Ensure

Live live in truly human and dignified way

*Pluralism (life activities))

(16)

8 women‘s escapism from the poverty. Therefore, as a result, Nussbaum‘s idea of capability approach seems to be more applicable in analyzing human capabilities than Sen‘s view that appears to be an initial guide to understanding human freedom. Conclusively, compared to Sen‘s, Nussbaum‘s capability approach resembles more effective and a holistic approach that can be applied in human development studies.

4. References

Anderson, S., 2003. Valuing freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and poverty reduction.

Ethics, 113(3), pp.678-680.

Bastos, A., Casaca, S., Nunes, F. and Pereirinha, J., 2009. Women and poverty: a gender- sensitive approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(5), pp.764-778.

Brown, M., 2008. Cultural relativism. Current Anthropology, 49(3), pp.363-383.

DeMartino, G., 2011. Capabilities, equality, and class justice: a reply to Wilde. Global Discourse, 2(1), pp.39-47.

Deneulin, S., 2013. Ethics and development: an introduction from the perspective of the capability approach. Geography Compass, 7(3), pp.217-227.

Donnelly, J., 1984. Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 6(4), p.400.

Gasper, D., 1997. Sen's capability approach and Nussbaum's capabilities ethic. Journal of International Development, 9(2), pp.281-302.

Maboloc, C., 2008. The concept of human development: a comparative study of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Master Thesis in Applied Ethics. LinkÃpings Universitet, Sweden.

Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A., 1993. The quality of life. Oxford [England]: Clarendon Press.

Nussbaum, M.,2000. Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M., 2011. Creating capabilities. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rachaels, J., 1986. The challenge of cultural relativism. In: J. Rachels, ed., The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 1st ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp.20-32.

Robeyns, I., 2003. Sen‘s Capability Approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2-3), pp.61-92.

Sen, A., 1994. Capability and well-being. In: D. Housman, ed., An Anthology, 1st ed. United States of America: Cambridge University Press, pp.270-295.

Sen, A., 1999. Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.

Zechenter, E., 1997. In the name of culture: cultural relativism and the abuse of the Individual on JSTOR. [online] Jstor.org. Available at:

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630957> [Accessed 11 May 2015].

(17)

9

A Conceptual Overview of the Effect of Household Behaviour on Malaria Control and Prevalence

Ahmad Yahaya Maigemua,*Kalthum Haji Hassan^b

College of Law Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia E-mail: ^a,*ahmad95084@gmail.com

Abstract

Malaria is a global health challenge and remains a cause of morbidity and mortality. Africa bears the brunt of the challenge. Several intervention programs were initiated to control malaria by governments at local and international but the disease persists and continued to pose the huge challenge to human society. This paper seeks to discuss into three most important concepts (perceived vulnerability, seriousness and barriers) and how they lead people to take decision of health care seeking behaviour. The health belief theory is used to understand how those concepts which are also among the constructs of the theory are explaining health behaviour. The theory assumes that health behaviour is determined by personal beliefs and perceptions and strategies available to decrease disease occurrence. The paper conclude that human behaviour is an important instruments used to understand and predict human health behaviour.

Keywords: Household Behaviour, Malaria Control, Perceived Vulnerability, Perceived Seriousness and Perceived Barriers.

1. Introduction

Malaria is with human beings for long periods as far back as 2700 BC and scientists argued that the disease is transmitted and passed by female mosquito. The concept of malaria is derived from Roman, although the parasite disease was not recognized by its current name until the middle of 18^th century. Before that time malaria was simply means and referred to different names as ague, intermittent fever, swamp fever, Roman fever, and death fever.

Malaria is a major threat to global health, and it is estimated that a population of 3.3 billion people lives in regions with a high risk of malaria (World Health Organization 2012).

According to WHO reports 2011 and 2012 those regions include 109 countries that have serious malaria prevalence. The biggest malaria deaths are found in 35 countries globally, among them 30 is in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the other five are in Asia. Roughly about 98%

of malaria universal consequences in terms of morbidity, mortality and general consequences take place within those countries (WHO, 2010).

Several intervention programs were initiated to control malaria. Those control programs focus on the distribution and use of insecticide treated bed nets, together with evidence-based health communication programs on the mode of malaria transmission and the importance of sleeping under Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs). The control programs also includes Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) involves the coordinated, timely spraying of the interior walls of homes with insecticides that kill mosquitoes and Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT) and several other control measures like home management/traditional using concoction of herbs and some available local resources (Amzat 2009). But despite those involvements through different interventions programs by government and other stakeholders

(18)

10 both at local and international level, malaria persists and continue to pose a huge challenge to human society (WHO 2012; National Institute of Malaria Research 2009).

The literature shows quite powerfully that human perception not only influence their behaviour, but are themselves key factors in determining the ability to practice health related behaviour. The paper is only look into the concepts of perceived disease vulnerability, perceived disease seriousness and perceived barriers.

1.1 Objective of the Study

This paper seeks to examine the role of human perception on malaria control and how they affect people‘s health care seeking behaviour.

The general objective of this paper is to provide a general discussion and conceptual analysis of household behaviour and malaria control with a support from existing literature and theoretical support.

2. Conceptualization of Perceived Disease Vulnerability

Perceived disease vulnerability is one of the powerful tools that influence people to engage into health related behaviour. The greater the people perceived the susceptibility of the disease and its risk to their life the more likely those people to engage into health seeking behaviour that reduced their chances of becoming more vulnerable to that disease. It is also generally believed that if people believed that the disease is not a serious risk to them and their life will also causes their reluctance to seek early disease treatment. It is our assumption that people perception about the vulnerability of malaria and it consequences to human society is what encourage people to seek or increased their behaviour. This behaviour includes their ability to seek and use different preventive methods available for malaria control. For example ITN, IRS, ACT, sanitation practices and other measures available for malaria prevention.

Literature shows that people will be more likely do something to prevent the disease from happening only when they perceived disease vulnerability and vice versa. According to MacCormack (1984) older adult do generally not perceived their self as vulnerable to HIV and its risk related consequences. As a result they practice unsafe sexual behaviour without seeking protection measures such as using condom during sex. This behaviour comes as result of their perception of not being at risk to HIV and AIDS vulnerability. The same circumstances were found among Asian American college students that see HIV as not Asian disease and therefore, not perceive HIV vulnerability as health challenge to their life.

Consequently their behaviour of practicing safer sex using condoms and other HIV protection mechanism was very low.

Based on the above situation it is indicated that there is a strong relationship between high disease perception and health behaviours and it is also serves as barrier to unhealthy behaviour. However, there is also different situation in some cases as perceived disease susceptibility may not always explained health behaviour. Lamanna (2004) carried out a study on perceived risks of developing skin cancer among college students and found out that, thus those students perceived the susceptibility of cancer disease and its effects to human society but still they do not sees themselves as vulnerable of getting cancer for them to used or apply health behaviour to reduced cancer risks. It is also found by Lewis and Malow (1997) among college students that even though they see themselves as vulnerable to

(19)

11 HIV due to their unproductive sexual behaviour but still do not practice safety behaviour in order to reduced HIV risks and its disease consequences.

2.1 Perceived Disease Seriousness

Perceived seriousness of disease entails individual perception about seriousness of disease and severity. Perception about disease severity is often based on medical information and knowledge individual possess about disease. McCormick Brown (1999) is of the opinion that perception of disease seriousness comes from a belief a persons have about the complexity and difficulty a disease would create or the effects it would have in his or her life in general.

According to Ulen (1999) perception of seriousness of the disease is the idea that if individual sees the seriousness and trouble the disease may likely to cause in his/her life in general will lead to change their behaviour based on the threat of that disease. For example most people view flu as comparatively minor illness which according to their perception may not caused or harm any serious damage to their health. As a result most of us have get flu treated and recover at home without seeking any health treatment outside. However it is also the belief of most of us that asthma or cancer is a serious disease that causes significant health threat to human being. It is also based on the above perception that many people respond positively in terms of urgent health seeking behaviour so that to reduced or decreased the possible disease impact to their body in general.

In the case of malaria our assumption is that if people perceived the seriousness of malaria disease they may probably adopt health care seeking behaviour in order to minimize the most likely consequences of that disease seriousness. Therefore if people observe the severity of malaria disease they can easily change their behaviour to seek for protection against malaria by using several measures such as ITN, IRS, ACT or any other relevant treatment measures.

On the other hand, if people perceived malaria as not severe disease they pay less attention to adopt or seek proper treatments that lessen the susceptibility of the disease.

2.2 Perceived Barrier

Perceived barrier involved individual perception about and opinion on what stop or block him from implementing new health behaviour that believes to be more effective and efficient than older behaviour. It is generally agreed that change is somehow not easy to human beings to switch from usual behaviour to new one. Perceived barrier entails the individual assessment of the impediment and problems he or she is facing in the process of engaging into new health behaviour. Perceived barrier serves as important concept in determining health care seeking behaviour (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004). In the case of malaria control perceived barrier explains the effectiveness of new malaria control services and how they encourage people to use those services. On the other hand poor quality of new services may decreased people behaviour from using those services and vice versa.

Perceived behaviour stated that for new behaviour to be adopted there is need for individual to assess the efficiency and usefulness of the new behaviour compare to old behaviour (Janz and Becker 1984). This enables the barrier to prevail over and allowed new behaviour to be taken place. Literature shows that in an attempt to improved breast cancer self examination practices in women it would seem understandable that the risk of breast cancer would influence early self cancer examination. It is also obvious that cancer is a dangerous disease and there is also high perception of its greater risks to human society. But of all those perception of risk, perceived barrier serves as most significant concept to the barrier of

(20)

12 carrying out breast self-examination (Umeh and Rogan-Gibson 2001). Some of the barriers comprise difficulty with starting a new behaviour or developing a new habit, fear of not been able to perform the new behaviour correctly and some other difficulties.

Those difficulties may possibly found in the case of malaria control as people find it difficult from starting the new behaviour of using some new service of malaria prevention such as ITN. Many people find it difficult to develop the habit of using ITN for malaria prevention.

Ahmad (2012) in his study of environmental sanitation and incidence of malaria in Gusau metropolis found out that people from poor environmental sanitation areas find it difficult to build up the behaviour of using ITN as malaria protection measure. Some other people also stated that they faced serious difficulty of how to use ITN and also serve as barrier for them of not using ITN (Ahmad 2012).

2.3 Theory: Health Belief Model

Health belief model is the most frequently used theory in the study of health education and health encouragement. The theory was developed according to Nejad (2005) by Godfrey et al in 1950s as a way to explain why medical screening programs offered by United States public health services particularly for tuberculosis and other diseases were not very successful (Nejad et al 2005). Health belief model is one of the most extensively utilized and applied frameworks in trying to understand and predict human health behaviour.

The concepts discussed in this paper is among the underlying concepts of health belief model and they believed that health behaviour is determine by personal beliefs or perceptions about a disease and strategies available to decrease it occurrence (Hazavehei et al 2007). Personal factors are influence by the range of interpersonal factors affecting health behaviour. The assumption of health belief model is that health behaviour is more often influenced by attitudes and beliefs, as well as established mechanisms to minimize the occurrence of disease within a social system. Health belief theory assume that believes about the burden of the disease often defends on both the perceived vulnerability to the disease that is how susceptible a person consider him/her self to the disease and perceived seriousness of the disease that is individual judgement as to the severity of the disease.

Therefore, with particular reference to this paper health belief model assume that if an individual or general members of the society does not perceived malaria as a serious disease to human society and does not observed it as vulnerable to them they may likely not take health related behaviour to protect the incidence of the disease. However if they perceived it as serious disease and also believed to be susceptible or vulnerable to it they may also adopt health related attitudes to ensure that they decrease the impact of the disease. The concepts discussed in this paper (perceived vulnerability, severity and barriers) are important components that influence the decision to taking health care seeking behaviour as also discuss by this theory of health belief.

3. Conclusion

This paper highlighted some of the important concepts that encourage people to adopt heath care seeking behaviour. The paper discusses the underlying concepts of health belief model and they believed that health behaviour is determined by personal beliefs or perceptions about a disease and strategies available to decrease. In the case of malaria this paper concludes that if people perceived the seriousness of malaria disease they may probably

(21)

13 adopt health care seeking behaviour in order to minimize the most likely consequences of that disease.

4. References

Amzat, J., 2009. Home management of childhood malaria and treatment failure among mothers of under-five in Offa, Nigeria. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004. Program operation guideline for STD prevention: community and individual behaviour. [online] Available at:

<http:/www.edc.gov/std/program/community9/htm> [Accessed 10 Jun. 2013].

Hazavehei, S., Taghdisi, M. and Saidi, M., 2007. Application of the Health Belief Model for osteoporosis prevention among middle school girl students, Garmsa, Iran. Education for Health, 20 (1), pp.1-11.

Janz, N.K. and Becker, M.H., 1984. The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11 (1), pp.1-47.

Lamana, I. M., 2004. College students knowledge and attitudes about cancer and perceived risks of developing skin cancer. Dermatology Nursing, 16(2), pp.161-176.

Lewis, I.M. and Malow, R.M., 1997. HIV/AIDS risks in heterosexual college students.

Journal of American College Health, 45 (4), pp.147-155.

MacCormack, C.P., 1984. Human ecology and behaviour in malaria control in tropical Africa. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 62 Suppl(1984), 817 [online]

Available

at:<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2536189&tool=pmcentr ez&rendertype=abstract> [Accessed 25 Jan 2013].

Maigemu, A.Y., 2012. Environmental sanitation and incidence of malaria control in gusau metropolis Zamfara State. Msc Dissertation submitted to Dept of Sociology UDUS.

Mccormick, B.K., 1999. Health belief model. [online] Available at

<http://hsc.usf.edu/_kmbrown/Health-Belief-Model-Overview.htm>. [Accessed 25 Sep.

2013].

National Institute of Malaria Research, 2009. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of malaria in India. Published by NIMR, New Delhi.

Nejad, L., Wertheim, E. and Greenwood, K., 2005. Comparison of the Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour in the Prediction of Dieting and Fasting Behaviour. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 1(1), pp.70-74

World Health Organization, 2012. World malaria report fact sheet. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization, 2010. World malaria report 2010. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization, 2011. Environment and health: healthy environments for healthy people. [online] Available at: <http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we- do/health- topics/environment-and-health> [Accessed 25 Jan. 2013].

Umeh, K. and Rogan, G. J., 2001. Perception of threats, benefits and barriers in breast self examination among young asymptomatic women. British Journal of Psychology, 6(4), pp.361-673.

Ulen, T.S., 1999. Rational choice theory in Law and Economics. Available at

<http://encyclo.findlaw.com/0710book.pdf on 22/08/13> [Accessed 25 Jan. 2013].

(22)

14

The Experience of Work of Kindergarten Teachers: A Critical Review of the Literature and Some Preliminary Findings

Nurshakirin Sulaiman^a,*, Beng Kok Ong^b

School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia E-mail: ^a,*shakirinsulaiman@yahoo.com, ^bongbengkok@usm.my Abstract

A great deal of research has demonstrated that productive-line factory work is alienating and produces a low level of job satisfaction. This is because factory work is repetitive, the wages are low and workers have very little autonomy and control over their work procedures.

Administrative or office work has been argued to be routine in some levels and it has also produced a low level of job satisfaction. Some nature of work, such as sales work, antique work and service works have greater autonomy, receive higher wages and have less repetitive work. Workers in these types of work have displayed a higher level of job satisfaction and a lesser alienation. Teaching work shares some of these natures and it is, therefore, expected to produce a higher job satisfaction. A great deal of research has been conducted on job satisfaction among teachers and they have shown that teachers‘ job satisfaction is very crucial in the commitment and effectiveness of their work as a teacher. However, some have found that teachers have also experienced job dissatisfaction and even job stress. This paper reviews the literature on the experienced of work critically with the aim of justifying a case study on the experience of work of kindergarten teachers in Penang. The paper also discusses some preliminary findings of this study.

Keywords: The Experience of Work, Kindergarten Teachers, Job Dis/ Satisfaction, Work Alienation, Job Stress

1. Introduction

Work plays an important role in human‘s life. According to Grint (1991), work is seen as a world phenomenon that is carefully built and care under social constructed. In other view, Clair et al. (2008) define works as a messy business. In addition to this, Marx (1966) also view that work has a link with human nature. According to Mark (1966) in his book The Nature of Man, human as active creatures that have a high potential in working as well as response towards their environment. In addition, Marx (1966) also view that through process of works, human tends to realize about self-realization, and leads to a transformation of life.

As for this, Grint (1991), Muirhead (2004), Heneman (1973) and Edgell (2006) debate that an understanding of work should starts with the historical evidence and factor as well as the work experience of the human themselves.

In the current world, it can be seen clearly that some work produce high job satisfaction while some others produces low job satisfaction. A great deal of research has demonstrated that productive-line factory work is alienating and produces a low level of job satisfaction (Clark, 1994). This is because factory work is repetitive, the wages are low, and workers have very little autonomy and control over their work procedures (Ong, 2005:1). According to Allan (2010), individual feels alienated in a world of factory-line work. This is because the worker feel that they have no choice as the employer are the one who controls everything;

production, employment as well as labors‘ time of the workers. This situation put the factory line workers in the state of alienation.

(23)

15 In contrast to the factory works, some nature of work, such as sales work (Ong, 2005) and antique work (Maria, 2014) have greater autonomy, receive higher wages and have less repetitive work. Workers in these types of work have demonstrated a higher job satisfaction and a lesser alienation. Workers in sales works and service works provide high job autonomy because they can exercise free will and self-control on the job. According to Hossain (2000), people who work as bank executives have higher level of job satisfaction in comparison to non-executives. In shorts, employees who have a high position feels more satisfied with their job compared to employees with low level position because they have high autonomy over their work as well as high salary. Thus, this indirectly produces high job satisfaction.

However, administrative or office work has been argued to be routine in some levels and it produced a low level of job satisfaction (Prandy, Stewart and Blackburn, 1982; Oo, 1994).

1.1 Teachers‟ Job Satisfaction

Teacher job satisfaction also has been an important topic in the past several decades, because job dissatisfaction might cause teachers to leave their positions (Liu, 2007; Darling- Hammond, 2003). A number of factors have been identiﬁed as being related to teacher job satisfaction in Western developed countries, such as role overload (Liu and Ramsey, 2008), leadership (Belﬁeld, 2005; Billingsley and Cross, 1992), teacher autonomy (Pearson and Moomaw 2005), salary, parent support, student behavior (Perrachione et al. 2008) and school climate (Pepper and Thomas, 2002). According to Maslach and Leiter (1999), teachers‘ job satisfaction influences the quality of the activity, their interaction with the children and, indirectly, the students‘ performance.

Social change and economic imperatives have challenged the teaching profession over the last decade, making it important to explore the issues in much detail. Dworkin, et al. (1990);

Kyriacou (1987); Schwab, Jackson and Schuler (1986); Pines and Maslach (1980) supported the view that teaching is a stressful occupation. This stress has increased as the relationship between society and education has become more complex (Esteve and Fracchia, 1986). As a result of social change, teachers face increased parental and community expectations for the outcomes and standards of education and the relevance of the curriculum. This has resulted in pressure to implement change in curricula and teaching practices. Many teachers assert that they are inadequately prepared to implement new curriculum (Bailey, Berrell and Gibson, 1991).

1.2 Teachers‟ Job Dissatisfaction and Job Stress

There is increasing evidence that in the course of their careers teachers experience a great deal of stress and this may have implications for their physical and mental health (Borg, Riding and Falzon, 1991; Byrne, 1999; Kyriacou, 2001; Tang et al., 2001). The stressors teachers may have to face include students with behavioral difficulties, problems with parent- teacher relationships, conflict with colleagues or having to organize teaching in a new way as a of working in teams or governmental change (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2007). Most teachers cope successfully with stress, for instance, through active problem solving, social and emotional support from colleagues, co-operating with parents or changing their teaching strategy (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2007). Some teachers may develop more psychological symptoms than others varying from mild frustration and anxiety to more severe symptoms such as burnout (Chan, 2007; Dunham, 1992; Schonfeld, 1992). Burnout in teachers represents teachers‘ negative responses to the mismatch between job requirements and their perceived abilities (Tang et al., 2001).

(24)

16 In order to understand teachers‘ stress, researchers have sought to identify the major sources.

Among the contributors of the teachers stress that has been identified are work overload, limitation of time, problems with the kids‘ behavior as well as the working environment (O'Connor and Clarke, 1990). In the course of identifying sources of stress, many studies have investigated the impact of some parts of demographic variables such as gender, age, family status and teaching experience on perceived stress (Byrne, 1991; Malik, Mueller, and Meinke, 1991; Schonfeld, 1992; Schwab and Iwanicki, 1982; Schwab, Jackson and Schuler, 1986; Tokar and Feitler, 1986). Analysis of such characteristics is useful when examining and associating the sources of stress reported; however findings from the above studies indicate that such demographic variables do not predict stress.

Based on the combined references of the literature review, it can be seen clearly that multiple types of work shares different level of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Some works such as sales work and service works produce high job satisfaction while some other works such as factory-line work produces low job satisfaction. Teaching work shares some of these natures and it is therefore expected to produce a higher job satisfaction. A great deal of research has been conducted on job satisfaction among teachers (Liu, 2007; Darling- Hammond, 2003). The research has revealed that teacher‘s job satisfaction has been identified as being a determinant of teacher commitment and school effectiveness (Huang, 2001). However, some have found that teachers have also experienced more dissatisfaction and even job stress (Kyriacou, 2001). Therefore, the central question to be examined is whether kindergarten teachers also experience low job satisfaction or job stress and to what extent this job satisfaction, dissatisfaction and job stress of kindergarten teachers impacting their quality of work.

As education is of utmost important and teaching has becoming one of the society‘s most important occupations in current world, the need for the study on the experience of work of teacher is seen to be crucial. Exploration in this paper provides an opportunity to develop a holistic and in-depth understanding of the interplay of factors that contribute to teachers‘

satisfaction, dissatisfaction, job stress as well as overall aspects of teachers work nature with the aim of justifying a case study on the experience of work of kindergarten teachers in Pe

International Conference on Social Sciences 2015